November
12
Oscar Watch: Early Benjamin Button Review
EDITED TO READ: So, to be clear: THIS IS NOT A REVIEW. Not a Variety review or a review at all. What it is: Notes from a viewer's responses to a screening of David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, starring Brad Pitt as the man who ages backwards. Get annoyed, growl, sneer, be jealous... whatever you like, just don't call it a review. The person is neither a reviewer nor associated with the film in any way.
OK, moving on. Among the impressions: It's magic realism (we knew that) and great technology (figured as much), but! "It's not remotely what I'd call cold." Interesting, since it's a criticism often leveled at Fincher's work. And while there's definitely "sentimentality," it's "toughened by the continual sense of loss and deep sadness at the transitory nature of the human condition."
At this point, the writer praises it into the stratosphere, calling it "a four-quadrant art film... sure touch... deft pacing." Predicts Oscar noms for, well, everyone, with a special shout out to Jason Flemyng as Benjamin's father.
And finally this:
"Can't wait to see what the Fincher freaks make of it. For the record, I am not one of them. Liked Fight Club, somewhat annoyed by Seven, didn't like Zodiac all that much. So I am not a Fincher Kool-Aid drinker. He was employed here to bring a very difficult piece of material to life and he's sure put everything he's learned about bravura imagemaking/moviemaking into it."
UPDATE: Paramount showed this movie to Karina Longworth, who under pain of embargo, is trying to keep mum. I had a big debate yesterday with an Oscar consultant about the issue of controlling when folks get to see a movie and then write about it in this internet age. The marketers want to generate positive press but are terrified of reviews, because entire Oscar campaigns are at stake, and little nuggets seep into the culture. It's driving a lot of us crazy. Stephen Schaefer weighs in.
Here's a Button TV spot:
Subscribe to this blog's feed
I saw this movie and posted a review of it yesterday at http://popculturenerd.wordpress.com
I also wrote a recap of the Q & A Brad Pitt and David Fincher did after the screening if anyone's interested.
Posted by: Elyse | November 12, 2008 at 05:04 PM
Oy, so now Variety is running reviews from secret screenings. This sounds like such a studio plant. Jesus, Anne, can't you write anything on your own? I am really surprised by Variety, I would expect this from Aint It Cool News, maybe.
Posted by: Curtis | November 12, 2008 at 06:07 PM
ROTFL at "Elyse". Spamming a Variety blog to pimp your own site? Sad, sad, sad...
Posted by: LOL | November 12, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Every time I do one of these it's a trusted, known, professional source. Someone like me. I'll write it up as soon as I can get into a screening. Needless to say.
Posted by: Anne Thompson | November 12, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Sorry Anne, but I don't believe a word of that anonymous 'review' nor do I trust anyone who uses wanky phrases like 'magic realism' to describe a movie. My hunch is that the usual Fincher fanboys - college kids & 20-somethings - will go batshit crazy for it (mind you they have already) while everyone else will regard Ben Button as good not great. Still, by publishing that opinion you've irritated David Poland no end so at least something good's come out of it.
Posted by: Rob | November 13, 2008 at 04:19 AM
I agree that it sounds like a studio plant - I wish they'd go on the record to put that to rest.
Posted by: sasha | November 13, 2008 at 07:07 AM
The movie looks SO, SO DAMN GOOD. Directed by David Finch? I'm in! Brad Pitt, Tilda Swinton, and Cate Blanchett? Oh man.
and based on a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald? Fuck, I'm having a wet dream.
Posted by: UGLY PUNK GURL! | November 13, 2008 at 08:11 AM
skeptical i am. i hope the movie is good, but i have to take this review with a grain of salt.
Posted by: Keith | November 13, 2008 at 08:17 AM
It disturbs me that anyone would think I would ever publish a studio plant! Trust me--no studio flack writes that way. People are eager to get info about this movie. The studio is withholding screenings and holding back on reviews because the film doesn't open until December 25. If someone sends me info about the movie, should I post it anonymously--because the studio would punish the person if their identity was disclosed? Or shut the hell up? You tell me.
Posted by: Anne Thompson | November 13, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Anne, you are possibly as naive as you are a lazy reporter. I work at a studio and know for a fact that you have been given, without your knowledge, "plants" so that you think you're getting as scoop.
Posted by: Curtis | November 13, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I went to the Stephen Schaefer piece you linked to and found him describing GRAN TORINO as a "'50s drama." Ummm, not quite. 78-year-old Eastwood plays a Korean War veteran who mixes it up with Laotian Hmong teenagers. I'm not sure where it's supposed to be set, but they shot it around Detroit. But the time period is definitely not the '50s. More like today, when Korean War veterans tend to be in their 70s.
Posted by: Brian | November 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Anne, you wrote about "the issue of controlling when folks get to see a movie and then write about it in this internet age," which is a valid one. Also a valid issue: not being a shit. If you give your word not to write about a picture until a given date, keep your word. Not because if you don't you'll be punished, but because YOU GAVE YOUR WORD. It might not seem fair, but nobody's putting a gun to your head, either. If you don't think you can keep your mouth shut, then turn down the invite. In the final analysis it's not really that complicated, as crazy-making as it is, and as much as it conflicts with what we perceive as our obligations as journalists.
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | November 13, 2008 at 03:15 PM
I ought to stress that I'm using the editorial "you" here, and generalizing, not implying anything concerning you, Anne. Anyway, we've had our long talks about anonymous sources in the past, to be sure...!
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | November 13, 2008 at 03:18 PM
Glenn, if I see a movie and give my word to a studio not to review it until the embargo date--in all deference to you and other full-time critics, what I do is not what you do, by the way--I keep it. In this case, which is very different, I have not seen the movie, nor have I been invited to it. Someone who has seen it, a professional with no affiliations to the movie who I know and trust, has provided me with their reaction--and I have posted it because it has news value. Do you not see that distinction? Also, when Time, Rolling Stone, the London critics, or Australian critics review a film, then we do break the embargo date. Because it has already been broken.
Posted by: anne thompson | November 13, 2008 at 04:33 PM
Curtis, call me at the office and we will discuss. You can identify yourself or not. It is the job of any journalist to assess all info provided, check its source, figure out where it came from. I am curious to know what you think you are talking about.
Posted by: Anne Thompson | November 13, 2008 at 04:44 PM
Anne—yes, I do see the distinction, which is why I came back with the disclaimer. My thoughts were, as I said, more general and not pertinent to what you posted but rather to the larger issue you pointed out.
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | November 13, 2008 at 07:49 PM
Anne, as usual, you have hit the nail right on the head. I too have been told almost EXACTLY what you were and not by anyone associated with it in any way. They just loved it. Were over the moon about it and that Cate Blanchett and Taranji are the probable acting nominees, but maybe not Brad. I mean, we all know he's CGied to death and the voice is -- well, it's complicated and it sounds like Gollum.
And Andy, who did Gollum, didn't win any acting awards for that portrayal. The acting branch does not want their members replaced by cartoons or special effects do not a performance make..But yes, you're information is absolutely spot on. Can't wait to see it!
Posted by: Stephen Holt | November 14, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I've seen it, I'm not a plant, and it is fucking brilliant.
Posted by: anonymous | November 14, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I realized what I MEANT to say, is that Brad Pitt's performance is assembled, like Gollum was assembled, on a computer. It's evidently brilliantly done, but it's computer special effects. And the Actor's Branch is notoriously averse to honoring anything that isn't just plain ole great acting performances that aren't reliant on Special Effects or CGI-make-up, as Andy Serkis' "performance" of Gollum as in LOTR. But it is said to be moving nonetheless.
Posted by: Stephen Holt | November 14, 2008 at 04:45 PM